Genae Girard had been astonished, too, when she learned that women like herself who need genetic testing to quantify their risks and to define the best treatment for their cancer could obtain it only by paying Myriad's ,400 fee, enabled by the monopoly that the BRCA patents bestow.

She resorted to wide-angle legal buckshot, suing not only Myriad and the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and other companies who hold patents on human genes.

I don't think there was any expectation that it was going to be anything different and that there would be any significant negative impact as a result." patentable.

I certainly have no objection to scientific research ... 4,438,032 Predictably, Myriad Genetics recently appealed a federal district court's recent decision rendering seven of its lucrative BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene patents invalid.

Ten years later, however, that same genetic testing could potentially be done by any number of labs (since we can now sequence the entire genome), for much less money than Myriad was charging, and both patients and doctors were complaining that they wanted a second opinion on those lab results, which they couldn't get.

In the last few years, a common practice known as gene patenting has been given prominent attention in the medical world, especially after a company called Myriad Genetics tried to patent or “own” the breast cancer genes.

Should the Supreme Court allow for companies to patent genes?

The verdict invalidates the patents Myriad Genetics has held on breast cancer genes BRCA1 and BRCA2 since the 1990's and allows other labs besides theirs to test for mutations in those genes which, when present, strongly indicate a genetic predisposition to cancer.

It also means that scientists can move forward in their genetic research without threat of being sued for copyright infringement.